Feminism = Professional Bitchery: Will the Bitching EVER Stop?

So, yeah, I get it, chicks have a unique perspective and have been silenced by The Patriarchy and we need affirmative action to open up more channels of dialogue for chicks to give us their opinions about politics and family and the economy and strappy sandals and whatnot.

So recently, the Washington Post, in an attempt to bend over forwards for the femtard hoards, started a new blog especially for women, and featuring women, called "She the People." Clever title. If you are in fifth grade. Which is actually four grades more clever than the average Women's Studies program in grad school.

Now, of course, the dirty little secret, unknown to all except for everyone outside of politics, academia, and feminism itself, which is to say, known by almost everyone, is that feminism's only tool is bitching about this, yielding only to bitching about that, and taking breaks on rare occasion to bitch about the other thing.

So professional bitch... errrrrr.... feminist... errrrr.... bitch, Jessica Valenti, whose life is "complicated" enough to get excited about such things, posted her uncompromising approval of the idea of... affirmative action??? Who knew???

Apparently, she feels (for all feminists feel rather than think) that women should, by sheer virtue of their womanness, be given the headline on the front page, regardless of their talent. It is not enough that the Washington Post has devoted an entire blog to the inane drivel and sheer psychosis that is feminism, and it is not enough that, by virtue of such blog, several women are employed who, by virtue of their Master's Degree in Women's Studies from an Ivy League institution, are fit only to be the Assistant Manager at Burger King. No, Valenti believes that those who have talent (and trust me, we are talking about the Washington Post here, so the whole idea of "talent" is quite relative in this discussion) should simply step aside, forfeit their work and compensation, and yield to the femtard hoards. Maybe she wants femtards to take over the Washington Post, and then just devote a sub-blog to the real writers?

Who knows, maybe Valenti and the other femtard "writers" got a new set of crayons at Christmas...?

So she bitches, quite bitchingly:

Here’s the thing: I will always want more women’s (and feminist) voices in the mainstream media, particularly in politics. There’s an overwhelming byline gender gap and that needs to change. But The Washington Post’s new lady blog, “She the People,” is not a step in the right direction. In fact, I think it’s pretty terrible.*

I’m all for WaPo featuring more women covering politics, but why oh why can’t they just - I don’t know - feature more women covering politics on the main site or pages? As Steph Herold tweeted earlier today, “why do women need a separate blog to write about politics?”

The logo doesn’t exactly help things either. I mean, “she” is underlined with lipstick?

The lipstick is the only redeeming part of the blog, in my opinion. Chicks are so hot in the right color lipstick. Just sayin'....




So, let's follow the progression of femtard bitching, shall we?

1) "There are not enough women writers in the mainstream media." (YAWN)

2) "The mainstream media should devote more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues.'"

3) "Now that the mainstream media has devoted more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues,' we don't like the way in which that has been done, because our psychotic, barely-able-to-construct-an-English-sentence, vocabulary-composed-only-of-variations-of-the-words-victim-and-empowerment writers are being kept in a femtard ghetto rather than splashed all over the front page, in spite of the fact that Newsweek is quickly tanking with their experiment with femtardism we still think all media should be given to us so we can talk about ourselves and our shoes and how abortion is so hottt!, so dammit, give us the front page and all you real employees of the mainstream media go home and await further orders from the jackbooted stormtroopers of feministing."

What is the lesson here? Feminism is not about defending victims of anything, nor about obtaining equality in anything. It is about getting just a little bit more. There is nothing that you will ever say or do, and no society that could be designed in either reality or imagination that will placate the professional bitchery of the femtards.

(I won't get into the psychological or metaphysical here, but one would be tempted to speculate that the constant inability of the femtard hoards to be satisfied with anything is more reflective of an internal state typified by emptiness, rather than any outward reality of genuine denial, but I digress....)

Feminism's only tool is professional bitching. And no matter how much you give a feminist, the bitching will never stop.

Feminists truly do believe that they are entitled to whatever they feel they want, regardless of their level of ability or accomplishment or the contribution (sic) that they make to society. Notice that Valenti never attempts to establish that women are doing a job sufficient to get a "real job" with the Washington Post. Because skill doesn't matter to a femtard. They are entitled, dammit!

But does anybody actually believe that if there were ANY feminist writer with the talent to write for the mainstream media, she would be denied a job?

If you doubt the lack of talent among feminist writers, simply read Jessica Valenti. After a couple of minutes of reading Valenti, you will be craving something sensible like, "See Spot run...."

Feminists Do Not Believe That Women Are Equal to Men

I do believe that equality before the law is, and ought to be, the ideal. This would necessarily imply that all affirmative action principles and other preferences for women (such as the ludicrous presumption that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and molestation) be weeded out of the courts in both principle and practice.

However, such an equality under the law would necessarily result in inequality of results. Men and women, not being the same, necessarily cannot be equal if their ability to secure certain outcomes is the measuring stick for "equality." And what is more, NOBODY - not even feminists - believes that men and women are equal, using that measuring stick.

First, note that the very structure of the law under feminism puts the whole world on notice that feminists consider women to be inferior to men. Feminists structure VAWA in such a way that a woman who makes an allegation is presumed to be a victim, even without the presentation of any evidence. The standard of evidence for obtaining a restraining order under VAWA - which could cost a man (because only men fall into this buzz-saw - that's the way feminists set it up) his home, his children, his marriage, his income, his reputation, and often his freedom - is the "subjective fear of the woman."

Yet if I do so little as proffer an insurance claim which winds up in court, I will be required to produce voluminous evidence to back up may claims or risk, not only losing my claim, but perhaps being charged with insurance fraud. That women are expected to receive the benefit of the doubt when making criminal and quasi-criminal allegations (and, that this is the feminist IDEAL for them to receive said benefit of the doubt) demonstrates clearly that feminists believe that women have a problem with truth-telling, and are thus morally inferior to men.

If feminists really believed that women are as adept at telling the truth as men are, why would they seek to LOWER the standard of evidence for one of the most serious allegations that a man can face to a standard below that required for an insurance claim or a property dispute? Aren't feminists admitting that they doubt the veracity of women (which may not be a bad idea, at least if one asks the Duke Lacrosse team or Dominic Strauss-Kahn or even the Casey Anthony jury) in seeking to have them be believed just because they make claims?

Further, all legal and cultural restrictions/incentives that imply that I should hire/promote merely based on gender is again a backhanded admission that without such restrictions/incentives, women COULD NOT attain such positions or promotions, and again is an implicit admission by feminists that they believe women to be inferior in the workplace. So feminist policy shows clearly that even feminists do not believe women to be equal with men.

But secondly, though feminists will brazenly and obnoxiously proclaim from every housetop that "women can do anything a man can do," I have never been in a personal conversation with someone making that outrageous claim but what the claim has not been immediately followed by a series of caveats....

"... but of course, you can't expect a woman to be able to lift as much as a man...." (this one admission, alone, philosophically destroys the equality argument, in my opinion, since physical strength and stamina necessarily influence, though not necessarily determine, every other ability in life)

"... but of course, social structures have hindered women from attaining fame and fortune as inventors and scientists...." (as if men have not accomplished everything in history against opposition, i.e., talk to Luther, Columbus, Einstein, Churchill, Reagan, or even Johnny Unitas or Joe Namath about how the world just rolled over and encouraged their accomplishments)

"... but of course, the good-old-boy network excludes women from participation...." (as if women, if they were "all that" and twice as bright as men to boot, would not have long ago discovered that the solution to this problem is the establishment of a good-old-girl network to compete against, and ultimately annihilate, the good-old-boy networks)

"... but of course, opportunities have been denied to women...." (because of course, men, at birth, receive a giftwrapped box with opportunity enclosed in it)

But the point should be pretty clear - if you are my equal, you are my equal no matter what. And every caveat that you can attach to your statement of "I am equal to you" is merely an admission that you realize you are NOT equal to me.

For instance, I was recently regaling my wife with stories of what a great basketball player I am, when I said:

"I am every bit the equal of Michael Jordan in every way, but, of course, I have never dunked the ball; and of course, the NBA conspired against me to keep me out of professional basketball; but that is because I am only 6'1, white, and can't jump as high as many NBA players; and so, of course, I never won an NBA championship. But the truth is, I am the equal of Michael Jordan in every way."

I would submit that the nonsensical warblings of feminists about female equality with men are about equally as credible. And the truth is, feminist claims of the equality of women, when it comes to ability, are much more an attempt to convince themselves than they are a justifiable attempt to convince the rest of us.

People who believe in justice will always be committed to genuine equality of men and women before the law. But people who have an intellect more mature than a 12-year old's and who do not fear reality recognize that such equality before the law will necessarily result in a wide practical inequality between the sexes.

*Newsweek* is Dead

I have been a constant reader of, and sometime subscriber to, U.S. News and World Report since my early teen years. I enjoyed the magazine because, though it was hardly evenhanded, it was the most evenhanded of the major newsweeklies, and has been - at least for as long as my experience with it beginning in the 1980s.

Not long ago I received notice of something that I already knew was coming thanks to reading the U.S. News blog - the magazine was shutting down as a paper weekly and would become an internet-only phenomenon. My paper subscription would be finished out by receiving a comparative number of issues to Newsweek.

Oddly (to me, but perhaps not in the grander scheme of things), the folding of U.S. News nearly coincided with some major changes taking place at Newsweek. Following an acknowledged decline of the magazine into rank liberalism (Evan Thomas, an Assistant Managing Editor at Newsweek, once famously admitted, "I think Newsweek is a little liberal.") beginning around 2008, the fortunes of Newsweek declined (i.e., the subscribers and advertisers abandoned ship, as they always do, cf. Air America) to the extent that the magazine was sold for $1 and a new management team, and consequently a new editorial team, was brought on board. Beginning with the March 14, 2011 issue, new Editor-in-Chief, Tina Brown, rolled out the "New Newsweek."

Tina Brown became famous - or at least well-known - as a progenitor of the breathy, Harlequin romance-style of "journalism" that provides bored women with fodder for gossip at bridge clubs held in the dining rooms of the wealthy the world over. In fact, she first gained international recognition (again, "fame" may not be the concept I am hunting for here) for providing coverage, in Britain's Tatler and on NBC's "Today Show," about all things Princess Di. From there, she moved into the heady journalistic spheres of... Vanity Fair. Yeah, this will end well.




So with these bona fides (Did I mention that she then founded a "news"/opinion website called The Daily Beast? Never heard of it? No worries - you are hardly alone, but you frankly need no more information about the site than to look closely at its name....), Tina Brown was an obvious choice to become Editor of Newsweek. OK, enough with the pretense. No, she wasn't an obvious choice. And still isn't. Let's be honest - she was an affirmative-action hire, like Katie Couric at the CBS Evening News. And her tenure will mimic Couric's in every way... but I am getting ahead of myself.

Journalism is not anything that Tina Brown understands. Politics (at least progressive, leftard, feminists-in-jackboots-sieg-heiling-thither-and-yon politics), she understands. And marketing. Or, I guess when done to the extreme now being indulged by Newsweek and for purely political purposes, I think it is usually called propaganda.

But me, being the patient and defer-all-judgment sort that I am, was willing to pick up the "New Newsweek" on the day when it arrived in my mailbox and check it out. Who knows? I have been pleasantly surprised before. Though not often. And I wouldn't be this time, either.

Opening the March 14 issue to its first substantive piece I saw a Tina Brown editorial statement (surprise!) titled "A New Newsweek" (surprise! surprise!). In a breakout box in the center of the page was a short blurb that in 26 lines, averaging about 6 words per line, contained some form of the word "women" or a pronoun that referred to women six times. Women today, we are told, are "fighting tyranny," "speaking truth," and "fighting for basic rights" including "being safe from sexual violence." I momentarily thought that I might be detecting a rather perverse theme, so I flipped back to the front cover and saw the word "women" twice on the cover. I then saw a story about "shattering glass ceilings" and a brief blurb about "the Dior Debacle," referring, of course, to the fashion designer, Christian Dior. Still not persuaded that I was seeing things clearly, I flipped to the table of contents page and spotted the word "feminist" twice and a story about "New Jersey's political odd couple." OK, you may have to beat me over the head with a boat oar, but I am persuaded that I am seeing it clearly now.

Now, just to supply some context here, the March 14, 2011 issue of Time magazine had a cover story titled, "Yes, America is in Decline." Given that we have three wars running, a $14 trillion debt (that anyone will admit to), near 20% effective unemployment, the dollar in steep decline, and the Keystone Kops infesting the executive branch, I find this a timely and relevant idea for an article in a leading newsweekly. Consulting the table of contents page of the March 14 Time, I find articles on oil prices, reforming Wall Street, Yemen, the budget fight in Congress, and the union chaos in Wisconsin. News. Real news.

So maybe Time is just great at what it does, and maybe that is why Newsweek somehow got run into the ground in the first place? Checking the March 7-14 issue of the liberal The Nation, I found a cover story on the publication of some new communitard book on using the French Revolution as a model for continuing to fight for "social justice," with other stories on "The Green Counterrevolution" and "In Defense of Public Workers." OK, not as good as Time, perhaps, but I think that we can grant that it is at least "newsy." Again, checking the table of contents, I saw articles on the Arab uprisings and censorship, just to name a few.

The March issue of the conservative The American Spectator contained pieces on the state of the Obama presidency, "Obama's Phantom Trains," Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Again, substantive and "newsy."

So, Brown's schtick is not seriousness, apparently - at least not when compared to her journalistic/liberal/conservative peers. Well, she admits as much, when, in her editorial statement ("A New Newsweek") she states that her vision for the magazine is that it will "allow the reader to PLAY in a different way" (emphasis added). So in a world in which Princess Diana is significant, "news" is "play." Let the dumbing down continue.

Did I mention that part of the "New Newsweek" is an emphasis on... well, why should I say it when Tina Brown's own words will do? "And let's not forget PICTURES" (emphasis added). Did somebody say "dumbing down?" Now if someone would just say, "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!"

So, dumbing.... errrrr, thumbing through the March 14 issue I see... fashion ads from The Limited (p. 9), an article on Arab feminists (p. 11), fashion ad from St. John (p. 13), an article on the "ominous" decision of Asian men to forego marriage rather than deal with feminists (v. 15), the ever-present photo spread of French President Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni (p. 20), what "France's most powerful businesswoman" believes about nuclear power (p. 30), "the secret to newlywed bliss" (p. 35), what Charlie Sheen's meltdown means for the various women in his life (p. 37), an article on what it was like to be one of Sadaam's children by (you guessed it!) one of his daughters (p. 40), a reprint of a 1960 article on "Young Wives with Brains" (p. 41), "The Hillary Doctrine," including the predictable sidebar on "The Evolution of a Feminist" and consequent breakout box on "The Gender Metric: The payoff for women's empowerment" (p. 44), "150 Women Who Shake the World" including a teenage student who is a "top student" at one of Cambodia's best private schools - and I swear I am not making this up (p. 52), an article on Iranian feminists - didn't they just do this a few pages back? (p. 66), an article on fashionista Christian Dior (p. 72), book reviews on four books, three by women, one of which is on love and another described as "a beautiful book" (p. 78), an article on cooking (p. 82), a blurb on the comeback of stilettos by Chanel in which the reader is encouraged to "step out in style" (p. 83), and a closing bow toward Kate Moss (p. 84).

OK, I admit, I am not being fair. That was just one issue. Tina Brown and her femtard buddies had a lot of pent-up gender rage and self-absorption and, well frankly, fashion advice after having been silenced by The Patriarchy all these years. One could forgive them for letting loose just this once, right? They will get back to their sober custodianship of a vital news organ with the next issue... likely.

So then I receive the March 21, 2011 edition of Newsweek and find that, among other cover stories are "Who Took the FUN Out of Washington?" (emphasis added) and articles on coffee and the ubiquitous Charlie Sheen. Inside are the requisite self-congratulatory letters to the editor on the new gynocentric magazine - from Lorraine and Terri, of course - I swear I am NOT making this up (p. 4). Follows, commentary on cutting back financially by transvestite celebrity RuPaul (p. 25), a fashion look at Kate Middleton (p. 30), a bow toward Michelle Obama's fashion sense (p. 44), an article on Starbucks (p. 50), Celine Dion and the homeless in Vegas (p. 58), more entertainment news in an article on Bono, Spiderman, and the omnipresent woman - director Julie Taymor (p. 65), a book review which can be summarized as "it is legitimate to murder if you are a chick claiming abuse" (p. 67), a blurb on spas (p. 69), an ad on enjoying your bath (p. 70), and an automobile review comparing the featured auto to a "Gucci" (p. 71). And no, I am not making that up, either.

Then the April 11, 2011 Newsweek arrived and Kate Middleton and Madonna shared the cover stories (yawn). An ad for bottled water graced page six, and an ad for taking your kids to the playground graced page nine. Sex discrimination on page 23 yields to the royal wedding on page 32 yields to a "Save the Children" ad on page 56 and a feature on Tina Fey on page 59 and a feature on Whoopi Goldberg on page 62 and dazzling heels and Michelle Obama's pearls on page 63 and I just can't do this anymore....

So the April 28, 2011 issue of Newsweek arrived with the cover story gloating about "The Beached White Male" yet recognizing that guys without jobs can be a little creepy and dangerous: "The Killer Stalking Long Island." But then, judging by the cover, at least, women aren't exactly tame either, as we are informed that the inside contains a story on "The Smoking Rage of Italian Women." Next issue, please....

The May 2, 2011 Newsweek features (significant, when juxtaposed with the prior cover on the "Beached White Male") the cute little Olsen twins all grown up and exegeted with a story titled "Meet America's Next Billionaires: How Those Cute Little Olsen Twins Built a Big, Fat FASHION Empire" (emphasis added). And of course, the necessary cover story on... Katie Couric. Next issue please. Things can't possibly get any worse.

Until they did. The May 9 issue of Newsweek cover: "Notes From a Royal Wedding," Sarah Palin, and "Obama's Mysterious Mother"....

It was at this point that I canceled my subscription.

Newsweek, though I would argue that it has seldom been a serious magazine, cannot under any standard be considered a serious magazine by even the most frothing-at-the-mouth libtard. Newsweek had its days. It was less liberal than many mainstream magazines throughout the 70s and 80s, and Mike Isikoff even broke the Lewinsky scandal as a reporter for Newsweek in the 90s. Today, however, Newsweek needs only a few scratch-n-sniff perfume ads to become Good Housekeeping, or the perfume ads plus one article per issue on "How to Be a Tiger in Bed" to become Cosmo.

But having adopted the feminist/female perspective, it now attempts to do the work of informing the public about substantive issues with all of the keen insight of a dating profile, all the self-absorption of an Oprah episode on "How to Get Him to Love You for YOU!", and all of the sophistication of a Harlequin romance novel.

Newsweek is dead. It was killed by feminism. And feminism killed it in two ways. First, feminism killed Newsweek by fostering an environment in which someone as untalented and unqualified as Tina Brown could get a job just because she is a woman. Secondly, feminism killed Newsweek by persuading the culture that perspective matters more than truth, and that females have a unique perspective that is worth attending to. In these same two ways (and two dozen more) feminism has almost killed Western civilization.

Newsweek was first killed because somebody, somewhere, made a decision to hire somebody who was not qualified to be a journalist, much less an editor, to handle the serious business of guiding the direction and content of a news magazine. Whoever made this horrible mistake made it because feminism has persuaded them that there is something unique in the female perspective that deserves expressing. In fact, they have insisted, under color of affirmative-action law, that women are required to be given the opportunity to express themselves, regardless of ability - because ability no longer matters. Only perspective matters.

Secondly, Newsweek was killed because it is no longer a news magazine. It is a self-absorbed and petulant expression of self-esteem and female "empowerment." As such, it is a journal of the neurotic, rather than a journal of news, because the only thing unique about the female perspective is its tendency to wholly depart from reality.

There indeed may well be something unique in the female perspective, but it decidedly does NOT deserve expressing, unless one is prepared to make a serious argument that ignoring a $14 trillion debt while explicating the newest in stilettos and Christian Dior controversies is really a grand and important strategy for changing the world in a positive manner. And any magazine that would attempt to persuade us, or deceive us, into believing that "150 Women Who Rock!" is a more important issue than $14 trillion that has to be repaid is on the cutting edge of neurotic - if not psychotic.

Tina Brown is a moron. She was a moron when she was the world's leading expert on Princess Di (and by the way, being the world's leading expert on Princess Di is, in the hierarchy of things, somewhere below being the world's leading expert on The Incredible Hulk... coloring books), and she is a bigger moron today. And a moron, when placed in charge of something important (like one of America's only two remaining newsweeklies) will tend to drag that important thing down to their irrepressibly stupid level rather than abandon their stupidity and pull themselves up to the level of the responsibility that has been laid before them.

Now, don't get me wrong, it is not my position that there is anything wrong with Good Housekeeping or Cosmo, per se. But in the same way that it makes no sense to put lipstick on a pig, it makes no sense to dress Good Housekeeping up in the robes of a sage and call it "newsworthy." Newsweek under Tina Brown is merely Good Housekeeping writ large. It is a futile attempt to float a formerly general-interest magazine by blatantly appealing to a narrow sliver of the general public - women. And let's be honest here, marketing news to women is a bit like marketing Budweiser to Mormons: any inroad you make will be progress, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it is a cogent business move. Women are the least-informed voting bloc in any demographic study, year after year, and that is not (and has never been) because there is a lack of news for women to access. It is, rather, because women would rather read about Charlie Sheen, Kate Middleton, strappy sandals, and "99 Ways to Drive Your Man Wild in Bed" than they would the intricacies of foreign policy, the intellectual matrix of Constitutional law, or the abstraction of the floating dollar.

The shallowness and self-absorption of the "female perspective" on display at Newsweek is the death rattle in the throat of a once-great American institution. The shallow and self-absorbed demographic it is targeted to reach is too shallow and self-absorbed to care, and those serious, thoughtful, and civic-minded enough to care to read a newsweekly will abandon this mess in droves.

Rest in peace, Newsweek. I am going to be subscribing to something with a little more intellectual heft and journalistic integrity... something like Maxim, whose pictures will always be better than anything Newsweek can offer. In the meantime, enjoy your "play."

New Mutual Fund Focuses on Women's Business Leadership! Insiders Warn: Accept Lower Returns!

On U.S. News & World Report, an article was recently posted regarding the 10 strangest mutual funds/ETFs.

One of them, the Women's Leadership Fund, has not yet been launched, but has duly been included in the article because, let's face it, chicks get credit for what they WANT to do the same way that dudes get credit for what they HAVE done.

I have often stated on this website (and likely elsewhere, and to my wife, family, and friends till they are all ready to weep) that women generally are not qualified for certain key social positions - military combat (because of physical limitations), military leadership (because, being unqualified for combat, they can't possibly possess adequate understanding of combat leadership skills), for the NFL (because of physical limitations), religious leadership (because their tendency to rely on feelings clouds their moral judgment), and business and political leadership (because their tendency to interpret reality in light of feelings and existing relationships is antithetical to correct decision-making in these two fields). However, when a (rare) woman comes along who can play with the big boys (Joan Jett, Margaret Thatcher), society should certainly stand out of the way and let her produce - as long as her production is comparable to that of the men she is competing with!

The fund in question targets investments in companies that have "significant female representation in leadership."

Wonderful.

So now, finally, we get to see that female leadership leads to increased RESULTS in the form of HIGHER RETURNS? Now we finally get to see that where women are unleashed in business, their superior abilities, collaborative thinking, and general righteousness is going to lead to an increased bottom line?

Uhhhhh, not so much.

We are being warned, by backhanded, politically-correct implication, that investors may have to expect... errrrrrr, "accept," somewhat lower returns...

"Any time you buy a fund that has investment restrictions on it—whether they be social or religious or industry-related—you have to be willing to accept lower returns in exchange for things that are important to you," says Adam Bold, founder of the Mutual Fund Store, an investment management firm with more than 65 U.S. locations. "That doesn't mean that you'll get lower returns, but going into it . . . you have to be willing to accept them."

How's that whole "Anything he can do I can do better!" thingy workin' out for you femtards?

Feminism: A Philosophy of the Mindless

"There is an ideological commitment to the notion that any differences occurring between males and females represent a failure of society to create equal and perfect opportunities for everyone so that the sexes will end up the same. This is a mindless concept."

Lionel Tiger, Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology, Rutgers University